Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 383 U.S. 519 - Brenner v. Manson

Brenner v. Manson’s Empirical Analysis

1966

Citation profile

399
cited by 399 later decisions
7
cited 7 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
May 2023
most recently cited

82 federal appellate · 36 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 399 later decisions (7 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2023 · most notably Eldred v. Ashcroft (2003), Bilski v. Kappos (2010)

82 federal appellate · 36 district · 5 state decisions

14401966197019801990200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Graham v. John Deere Company of Kansas City Calmar Inc · Federal Communications Commission v. Pottsville Broadcasting Co. · Glidden Company v. Zdanok Lurk · United Gas Improvement Co. v. Continental Oil Co. · Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 399 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “a patent is not a hunting license. It is not a reward for the search, but compensation for its successful conclusion.”
    15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, * * *»”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Thus, in Application of Wilke, 314 F. 2d 558 , 50 C.C.P.A. (Pat.) 964, the court reversed a Patent Office denial of a process claim, holding that 35 U.S.C. § 112 (1964 ed.) was satisfied even though the specification recited only the manner in which the process was to be used and not any use for the products thereby yielded. See also Application of Adams, 316 F.2d 476 , 50 C.C.P.A. (Pat.) 1185. In Application of Szwarc, 319 F.2d 277 , 50 C.C.P.A. (Pat.) 1571, the court acknowledged that its view of the law respecting utility of chemical processes had changed since Bremner. * * * (Emphasis supplied)”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.